Was an Obama Supporter Behind the Improper Passport Access

The third employee, who has not been fired, worked for The Analysis Corporation (TAC), which is headed by John O. Brennan, a former CIA agent who is an adviser to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign on intelligence and foreign policy.

The TAC employee is the only individual to have accessed both Mr. Obama's and Mr. McCain's passport information without proper authorization, a State Department spokesman said. That employee, who was not named, triggered an electronic alarm system, officials familiar with the probe said.. . .

Could he have looked at Obama's file to see if there was anything damaging there that the campaign should know about? Could he have looked at McCain to see if there was anything damaging that they could find?

Left wing Academics Guess that it will be a 6 to 3 Decision that Owning Guns is an Individual Right

For those of us who believe that the collective rights model is the correct one for the Second Amendment – that is, that the Amendment, properly read, only grants a right to keep and bear arms within the government militia – oral argument in District of Columbia v Heller was ominous. Based on comments at oral argument or previously, I count six likely votes for the individual rights interpretation: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer, Roberts, and Alito.

Global Cooling

The Australian has this interesting article today that excerpts a discussion on ABC Radio National (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback." . . .

Gails Collins writes about the many failings of the new New York Governor

The fact that Paterson had a history of fooling around was not exactly a shocker. Albany is a place that specializes in illicit sex. The fabled Bear Mountain Compact is the old New York City legislators’ rule that anything that happens after you cross the Bear Mountain Bridge on your way upstate doesn’t count. Many other American statehouses have the same atmosphere of sexual misbehavior and overall ethical sloppiness, although New York does deserve credit for giving it a cute name. . . .

All former mistresses deserve advance notice, especially if they are soon going to be asked to explain their qualifications for the $150,000 job. . . .

Here is my question: where is the outrage over a then Lt. Governor getting women that he had affairs with well paid political appointments? This piece in the NY Times doesn't seem to be concerned at all.

The WSJ's take on last Tuesday's Hearing on the DC Gun Ban

As shoot-outs go, the Supreme Court had a famous one Tuesday during oral arguments over the constitutionality of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban. The smoke won't clear until the High Court issues its decision, but the debate this week augurs well for a conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. . . .

3/21/2008

Defensive gun uses

The NRA has apparently put up a page that allows you to search through their data bank of news stories on defensive gun uses. The link to their site is here.

Here are some of the most recent permitted concealed handgun defensive gun uses that they have on their site:

Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, FL, 11/07/07 State: FL American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2008 Juan Amezage and Stephen Soto were enjoying the fall weather outside Soto's apartment. The mood was shattered when two strangers walked by two or three times as If casing the neighborhood. Then the strangers approached. 'What time is it?' one asked. Soto looked down at his watch. but as he raised his head the stranger said, 'Hey, run them,' and drew a gun. But Amezaga and Soto are concealed-carry permit holden. Soto pulled a 9 mm pistol just as the stranger shot. The bullet grazed Soto's shin, breaking the skin. Police say Soto fired two or three times, and the robbers fled. One robber stopped and again began shooting. Soto and Amezaga both returned fire and the robber fled. "It could have been real bad last night If it wasn't for the quick thinking and our concealed-weapons permits" Soto said. "We might not even be here"

Yakima Herold-Republic, Yakima, WA, 11/21/07 State: WA American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2008 Jason Moore returned home to find a strange car outside. A concealed-carry license holder, he grabbed a .45-caliber handgun from his truck and inspected the home, finding the back door kicked in. Once inside, he spied a man in the bedrodm. He approached cautiously and spotted another suspect. The second man was holding Moore's own shotgun. "I fired one round and he went down," Moore said. "I Immediately dialed 9-1-1 and told them not to move ... I told them that a lot." The injured suspect complied, but the other claimed to be a gang member who would have Moore killed. When police arrived, they informed Moore that the injured suspect was wanted by U.S. Marshals on drug charges and his accomplice was a suspect in a homicide. "It's just scary to know that there were two people that bad in my house and in my bedroom," said Moore.

The Greenville News, Greenville, SC, 9/12/07 State: SC American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2007 A woman from retired preacher Bill Willis's church invited him to take a concealed-carry class with her. Though Willis had never been particularly interested in firearms, he agreed, obtaining his permit, purchasing a .22-caliber pistol and practicing with it regularly. Not long after, Willis' wife, Judith, woke him in the middle of the night and announced there was an intruder. Willis spotted the man darting into the bathroom and quickly retrieved his Walther P22. Police say he warned the suspect three times, "Come out with your hands up. I have a gun and I will shoot." The man exited the bathroom and approached Willis, pretending to surrender, then pulled out a knife and viciously stabbed Willis'arm. Willis shot and killed the assailant. Deputies have temporarily seized Willis' pistol as evidence, but he purchased another. "It would be foolish not to be prepared," he said.

Daily Herald, Provo, UT, 9/18/07 State: UT American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2007 College student John Erickson parked his scooter and was walking toward his house when a pit bull charged him in an unprovoked attack. "All of a sudden the dog grabbed my leg from behind," he recalls. He swung his helmet at the dog, temporarily halting the assault but the dog recommenced the onslaught. Erickson, a concealed-carry permit holder, was forced to draw his 9 mm pistol and shoot the delinquent animal. His mother, Lyn, used to oppose her son's firearm ownership, but after the incident she noted, "Now I'm saying,'I'm just so thankful he had a gun,' I'm just so thankful because what would you do?"

The Macomb Daily, Mount Clemens, Mich., 8/21/07 State: MI American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2007 A CONCEALED-CARRY permit holder left a restaurant and stopped for a red light. According to police, that's when an attempted carjacker stuck a knife through the window and demanded the car. "The victim pulled out his handgun and he last saw the suspect running;" said Warren police detective Sgt. Michael Torey.

Prediction on Democratic Nominee and Democratic party

On February 15th I predicted that Clinton would win the nomination. Despite the conventional wisdom that points to the fact that Obama is ahead by about 132 delegates, the recent events have only confirmed my feelings about this. I think that Clinton will win a smashing victory in Pennsylvania and I am less certain but I think that she could win in North Carolina. In fact, with the possible exception of North Carolina, Clinton should take all the remaining primaries. North Carolina has a very large black population and that provides a huge safety net for Obama. One problem that this creates for Obama is that his current problems will be discussed over and over again as a possible explanation of him not doing well. I think that super delegates will begin to wonder more and more openly if Obama can make a strong showing in November. All this will split the Democratic party. Blacks will refuse to vote for Democrats in the Fall.

Even if Obama were to win the nomination, the party will be extremely divided. Today's event with Bill Richardson endorsing Obama convinces me even more that if Obama gets the nomination Richardson will be the VP nominee.

Down ballot races. My guess is that if Clinton gets the nomination, it will be a much worse disaster for down ballot Democrats. If she wins, blacks won't show up to vote for anyone. If Obama wins, he may lose some Democratic votes but those voters will still show up and vote down the ballot.

The timing sure looks suspicious: Did Clinton have access to the information obtained from Obama's passport file

As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?

. . . . The question came from the Hillary camp on March 12; two of the breaches were before that date.

3/20/2008

Sometimes 911 just isn't fast enough

WEST COVINA, Calif. (AP) - A woman made a 911 call from her suburban mansion to report an attempted break-in, but her pleas were interrupted by gunshots, then silence: She had been shot to death.

The woman told the dispatcher late Wednesday morning that someone was trying to break into her home in upscale West Covina, Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Dan Rosenberg said.

"Deputies heard gunshots followed by silence and an open phone line," he said. . . .

Thanks to Andrew Breitbart and Bob Aldridge for sending me links to this article.

UPDATE: The LA Times reports that this family had taken all sorts of other security protections:

The walled and gated residence also offered far more privacy and security than the ranch-style home they had left just two blocks away. The couple added security cameras. A sign out front read: "Warning: All activities are recorded to aid in the prosecution of any crimes committed against this facility." . . .

3/19/2008

Oregon teacher who wanted to carry permitted concealed handgun at school files appeal

GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- The Medford teacher who was denied permission to take her pistol to school for protection is filing an appeal.

A brief sent Wednesday to the Oregon Court of Appeals on behalf of Shirley Katz argues that state law allows people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns in public buildings, and only the Legislature can change that, not the Medford School District.

"The only thing that's changed is more people have been killed in schools since we started this battle," said Katz's attorney, James Leuenberger of Lake Oswego. "The bloodshed will continue until responsible people are armed in schools."

A Jackson County circuit judge ruled last year that the Medford school district's employee policy barring guns on campus was not covered by the state law that bars cities and other governmental districts from regulating guns because it did not amount to an ordinance. . . . .

Scientists puzzled that Ocean is getting colder

This headline from NPR is so amusing, "The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat." Well, one unconsidered option is that there is no global warming.

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. . . .

A possible new problem for Obama regarding his pastor

Sean Hannity has information here that Obama called for Imus firing because of the horrible things that Imus said and that Obama would remove anyone from his staff who said something similar.

"Nobody on my staff would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody or any ethnic group and I would hope that NBC ends up having the same attitude."

I think that Rev. Wright's comments are much worse than Imus' stupid comment. This inconsistency on Obama's part seems devastating. Apparently, Clinton and Obama are going to debate again before the Pennsylvania primary. If Obama isn't asked about this inconsistency, it will be embarrassing for the questioners at the debate don't ask him about this.

UPDATE: John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary had this to add:

Barack Obama's speech on race in America was a tour de force in many ways, but one section made me cringe and deserves some rebuke. There is an expression about ambitious politicians who would "walk over their grandmothers" in pursuit of their goals. Mr. Obama almost did that yesterday.

In explaining why he would not repudiate his extremist pastor, Mr. Obama said, "I can no more disown [Rev. Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Now Mr. Obama’s campaign has made clear that his 84-year old grandmother, who has asked to be left alone, should be considered off-limits to political reporters. But yesterday, it was Mr. Obama who didn't leave her alone when he used her for one of the central themes of his speech. His behavior recalls the time when Bill Clinton regularly trashed his stepfather as a violent drunk as part of his 1992 campaign. The idea of talking about his stepfather's human frailties to advance himself politically struck many people then as a selfish act and a gross distortion of the loyalty family members owe to each other.

UPDATE2: This is also from the WSJ's Political Diary:

"How is it possible that a campaign apparatus that sniffed out Geraldine Ferraro's offensive statement to a local California newspaper (the Daily Breeze, 12th paragraph) did not know that Wright's statements condemning America were all over the Internet and had been cited March 6 by the (reputable) anti-Obama columnist Ronald Kessler? The sermon was also available on YouTube. In other words, how is it possible that a man who has made judgment the centerpiece of his presidential campaign has shown so little of it in this matter? One possible answer to these questions is that Obama has learned to rely on a sycophantic media that hears any criticism of him as either (1) racist, (2) vaguely racist or (3) doing the bidding of Hillary and Bill Clinton" -- Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.

UPDATE3: Listening to Dennis Prager's radio show yesterday. Dennis during his second hour had a devastating discussion of Obama's speech when Obama discussed his grandmother and his comparison of his grandmother to the Rev. Wright. Dennis' point was how could anyone make a comparison between the supposed sins listed of his grandmother with Wright. For example, the one specific sin of his grandmother was that she was sometimes fearful of black men. Dennis, I believe correctly, noted that a large number of Americans both white and black could be fearful of young black men if the individual were alone in a dark parking lot and they were walking near young black men who were dressed in a certain way. How does his grandmother's statement compare to that of Wright that the government invented AIDS to kill off black men or that the government supplies black men with drugs to kill them and get them in jail? Or any of the other claims made by Wright?

The critics will tell you that blaming white America for spreading AIDS to blacks is not the same as an elderly white woman admitting that she is afraid of black men, and that there is a difference between standing by the grandmother who raised you and standing by a religious leader who preaches hate.

Even Jesse Jackson admitted a few years ago to the sad truth that he was afraid of young black men. Most young black men don’t commit crime, but a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the minority who do. . . . .

One of my favorite exchanges from yesterday's oral arguments

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers? MR. DELLINGER: No, it's not, and the difference is quite clear. If -- if you -- there is no limit to the public discourse. If there is an individual right to guns for personal use, it's to carry out a purpose, like protecting the home. You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The regulation -- the regulation at issue here is not one that goes to the number of guns. It goes to the specific type. And I understood your argument to be in your brief that because rifles and shotguns are not banned to the staple extent as handguns, it's all right to ban handguns.

Some more reactions

"The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense."

"While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books, we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny."

"While that conclusion alone could elate many gun-rights supporters, that may not have been the most difficult question in the case argued today before the court. That question is: If such a constitutional right exist, how may legislatures and city councils limit that right? And the profound disagreements Tuesday among the justices on that question suggest that the answer may come amid some serious shades of grey."

3/18/2008

Reaction to DC Gun Ban Case

A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District's ban on private handgun possession than defense of it. . . .

The Supreme Court appeared ready for the first time to read the Second Amendment as entitling individuals to keep firearms for private purposes, during the high court's first hearing on the controversial provision in nearly seven decades. At the same time, the justices appeared split over what regulations government can impose on that right.

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is determining what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

New Op-ed up at National Review Online: Going Up for Second: Gun rights@SCOTUS

If courts made their decisions based on public opinion, the case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear today on the District of Columbia’s handgun ban would seem to be easy to decide. The polls and the sheer number of those filing amicus briefs support an individual right to owning guns. Yet, the Justice Department’s brief, while technically also supporting an individual right, has made this debate much more complicated and, for the first time in American history, even compelled a vice president to file his own brief.

A Gallup poll in February found that 73 percent of Americans believe that Second Amendment protects an individual right. On top of that, 305 members of Congress, 31 states, and the Department of Justice all make the same claim. Support is bipartisan. On the other side, only a minority of Democrats — 18 members of congress and attorney generals from five states — signed briefs arguing that it isn’t an individual right.

Even among presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama all reach the conclusion that there is an individual right to owning guns. Prominent liberal Democratic legal academics such as Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, and Laurence Tribe have reached similar conclusions.

Perhaps all this is not surprising given that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and everyplace else in the Constitution that discusses “the right of the individual” the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this phrase to mean precisely what it seems to mean, that an individual right, not the right of the government, is protected. Even if there were any remaining doubt, the debate over the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, made it clear that Congress wanted to protect blacks against Southern states that were trying to disarm them after the Civil War.

Yet, all that agreement hides a very significant difference. The debate today will likely be over what protection is given this individual right. . . .

The Question about Obama

Suppose that a white person belonged to a club where the president of the club made multiple racist statements. Suppose that the individual criticized the president of the club but still remained a member? How difficult would it be for the person to get confirmed by the Senate to any position?

Just look at the difficulty that judicial nominees have faced because when there were obsolete and nonenforceable covenants on their property. Or the difficulties that nominees have faced for belonging to all male clubs? If a Republican presidential candidate were discovered to have any of these problems, wouldn't his campaign have imploded? How about if it looked as if the Republican candidate made it look as if he was not being honest about what he knew about any of these things? Wouldn't the press have just torn him to shreds?

Obama apparently has a major talk to give Tuesday morning. It will be interesting to see if he changes what he admits to having known. The leaks of information contradicting his claims will slowly bleed the campaign dry. If he does come clean, will the press hammer him? Will the press be allowed to ask him questions after his talk? It will be very interesting to see what happens.

If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.

In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!

You can’t be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.

Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election-year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. . . .

IN the first sermon Barack Obama ever heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor railed against "white folks' greed," the bombing of Hiroshima and "the callousness of policymakers in the White House and in the statehouse."For Obama, the experience was formative. The sermon's title, "The Audacity of Hope," became the title of Obama's second book and the theme of his presidential campaign. . . ..

Juan Williams was not impressed by Obama's talk on TUesday:

“I think it goes on,” National Public Radio national correspondent Juan Williams said of the controversy.

Williams, a FOX News analyst, questioned why Obama allowed himself to remain publicly associated with Wright. He said Obama did not address the “judgment and character” issues that he’s running on.

“I think he had to take responsibility … and that’s what he didn’t do,” Williams said. . . .

"It wasn't until he was forced to take a stand against Wright's screed that he finally did," Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio wrote in an email. "Why didn't he denounce what he said when he said it? Why didn't he distance himself then? What Wright said was no one-time slip of the tongue."

Planned Parenthood taking donations Specifically for Aborting Blacks

Planned Parenthood of Idaho has apologized after an employee encouraged a telephone donation aimed at aborting black babies.

Officials for the group said last month that the employee made a "serious mistake" encouraging the donation, the Idaho Statesman reports. But Planned Parenthood criticized the publication that made the call — The Advocate, a student anti-abortion magazine at the University of California-Los Angeles — for trying to discredit the organization by having an actor pose as a donor, the Idaho Statesman reports. . . . .

According to a transcript released by The Advocate to the Statesman, an actor portraying a donor called Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho, saying he wanted the money to be used to eliminate unborn black babies because "the less black kids out there the better."

Kersey responded: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."

New Op-ed up at Fox News: "Financial Markets Are in a Mess"

Politicians always seem to know better. Not satisfied with telling people what types of light bulbs to use and the size of cars they can drive, politicians in Washington have decided to replace financial markets and try legislating away the laws of supply and demand.

Last week congressional democrats introduced regulations to stop what they complained were "wild interest rate hikes" on credit cards. Before that Hillary Clinton advocated a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on interest rates for sub-prime mortgages.

Yet, price controls don’t solve the problems with high interest rates. If people want to borrow more money than is available, interest rates rise, both to attract more to lend and insure that those who need what scarce money there is, are the ones who get to borrow it. If regulations prevent interest rates from going up, you get shortages and credit rationing. . . .

The main point of the op-ed is how government regulation created the current mess.

Now women are being asked to give up birth control pills for the environment?

As far as I can tell there are still plenty of fish in Washington State, but possibly this will get some women to rethink their absolute position on the environment:

Wherever possible, Tina Casale switches to compact fluorescent light bulbs; she also recycles daily, rides in carpools or walks when she can, and, as a third-grade teacher, has made it a priority to ensure that global warming is a frequent topic in her science discussions.

But in the eyes of some activists, Casale could be doing more to save the environment: Namely, tossing out her birth control pills.

Birth control pills, like batteries and baby bottles, have become the latest item in American homes to become a focus of environmental and health concerns. As scientists debate the effects of synthetic hormones that are flushed into waterways, the potential threat has sparked a clash between advocates and critics of the pill.

"I've heard a little bit about the bad things that birth control can do to the environment," said Casale, 26, who lives in New York City. "If it's causing major problems, I guess I would stop. But to me, the health effects of the pill are a much greater concern than the fate of fish."

In 2003, a group of scientists in Washington state made headlines when they discovered that traces of synthetic estrogen in the state's rivers had reduced the fertility of male fish. Hormonal birth control pills and patches were blamed. Two years later, a team of scientists funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found trout with both female and male characteristics. The culprit, again, was synthetic estrogen.

David Norris, a physiology professor at the University of Colorado, said it is not just estrogen's possible negative effects on aquatic environments that concern him as much as the exposure of these hormones to humans, especially fetuses and newborns. Norris said numerous reports show that estrogenic chemicals in water can result in thyroid problems and an adrenaline imbalance. Thyroid inhibitors are of major concern because they affect the nervous system's development and can cause permanent mental retardation. . . .

On the other side, it is pointed out that those making the link haven't proven the exact source of the estrogen:

Heather Trim, the urban bays and toxics program manager at the People for Puget Sound in Washington, warns women that there is no evidence in the United States of the human impact of contaminated estrogen water, and that women should not discard their pills just yet.

"Estrogen is also found in products like hair straighteners and plastics," said Trim. "It's not necessarily just birth control." . . .

What the California Courts think is the purpose of public schooling

David Friedman has a post up on his blog where he points to Judge H. Walter Croskey's decision in the recent home schooling case. Friedman quotes the judge as writing:

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

For those interested, you can find a copy of one of my papers on this topic here. The empirical evidence that I provide indicates that the judge is indeed correct that this is the reason that public schooling is provided as opposed to some type of voucher system or simply let it be done privately.

Real Problems for Obama

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

. . . . Still more evidence has surfaced that Mr. Obama likely knew a great deal about the content of his pastor's sermons. Last year, the New York Times reported Mr. Obama personally called Mr. Wright to tell him he was being disinvited from giving the public invocation at the announcement of Mr. Obama's candidacy. Mr. Obama explained the move by pointing out to his pastor that a recent Rolling Stone story called "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" had reprinted excerpts from Wright sermons. "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public," was Rev. Wright's recollection of what Mr. Obama told him.

The Rolling Stone story included the following Wright quote describing the United States: "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS.... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people.... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!... GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!"

At least one member of Rev. Wright's church apparently had her fill of such rhetoric. Oprah Winfrey, a staunch backer of Mr. Obama, began attending the church in 1984. But sometime in the mid-1990s, Christianity Today reports the superstar abruptly stopped going. It may well have had something to do with her desire to distance herself from his fiery speech. Rev. Wright criticized her absence, claiming that Ms. Winfrey has broken with his notion of "traditional faith."

Mr. Obama took a different path. He not only remained in the church, but in 2001, the same year Ms. Winfrey left, had his daughter Natasha baptized by Rev. Wright. The question more and more people are asking is: Why?

The Run Up to the Supreme Court Hearing the DC Gun Ban Case on Tuesday

Two hundred years ago, the rights secured by the first 10 amendments were so widely accepted that many of the Framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. Yet the Anti-Federalists wisely insisted on a Bill of Rights, fearing that fundamental tenets of individual liberty might later be deemed inconvenient, impractical, or even dangerous. . . .

The case that will be argued Tuesday is over the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Courts have long interpreted that to protect the state's right to form a militia rather than a citizen's unfettered right to own firearms. Last year, a conservative appellate court, however, overturned a ban on ownership of handguns in Washington, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment. . . .

This isn't really serious because the Miller decision didn't address the Second Amendment being an individual right. What the case dealt with was the much more limited issue of whether a sawed off shotgun was a military weapon. But it could have been that individuals had a protected right to own military weapons.

The conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, who often reflects views from inside the Bush administration, wrote Thursday in The Washington Post that there was “puzzlement over Clement” and an expectation “in government circles” that the solicitor general would “amend his position when he actually faces the justices.”

Those who have watched the 41-year-old Mr. Clement, a veteran of nearly four dozen arguments who enjoys the respect of justices across the ideological spectrum, think it most unlikely that he would bow to pressure of this sort. “Don’t count on it,” Martin S. Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor and former Justice Department lawyer, wrote on the Web site Scotusblog, adding that “the institutional cost to the office of such a reversal” would be high. . . . .

The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the District's law, which is aimed at taking the most dangerous guns off the streets of what was once one of the nation's most dangerous cities. Anything short of this would promote perverse ideological purity over the legitimate interests of lawmakers to protect public safety.

This is the confusion. If people really believed that there were compelling reasons for gun control, they wouldn't need a lower standard for the Second Amendment than the other parts of the Bill of Rights. If they really believed this, it should be easy for them to meet that standard.

3/16/2008

Obama asking for Republican Votes

GIven the complaints about Rush Limbaugh suggesting that Republicans in Texas, I thought that this story was interesting:

The [Obama] campaign is running radio ads in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to urge students, independents and Republicans -- three key voting blocks -- to register as Democrats before the March 24 deadline. . . .

I lost the link to this quote, but I believe that it was from the Tribune-Review in Pittsburgh.